From: Mugno, Anthony (AMugno@SITAAPS.org)
Date: Wed Mar 12 2003 - 06:35:11 PST
Gotta add my 2 cents here
Anyone who thinks this is about saving our economy through cheap oil is a
moron!!!!
If we wanted cheap oil we would remove all sanctions from Iraq and let them
ship all they wanted. Saddam needs the income and he would largely
disregard OPECs wishes to moderate the flow. This would create a glut on the
world oil market.
He would then use the profits to fund his Nuclear ambitions. Which by the
way FRANCE is providing the technology even today. Thats why Froggy doesnt
want a war. They dont want to get caught with their fingers in the cookie
jar.
We can stop him now BEFORE he has time for any more buildup or try to stop
him later when he really gets armed to the teeth. There are some definite
analogies to WWII era germany as someone pointed out earlier.
The three countries deadset against a war have more to lose financially with
Saddam out of power than in power. At least in the short run anyway.
-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Bedel [mailto:GBedel@designforum.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:58 AM
To: mil-veh@mil-veh.org
Subject: Re: [MV] The French
Typically a criminal in this country if told by the Police to drop your
weapons), you do as they say or suffer the consequences. There is always no
time to argue about time to disarm.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Seidts [mailto:jseidts@astory.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:51 AM
To: mil-veh@mil-veh.org
Subject: Re: [MV] The French
Steve,
You are right about history, but remember whose father put Saddam in
power, who funded the Mujaheddin and then dropped them like a hot potato,
and who stood around while lots of muslims were ethnically cleansed in the
Balkans. We also tolerated the Turkish solution to the "Kurd" problem,
which was to declare them terrorists (which they rightly were) and kill lots
of them, driving them into Iraq; now of course, they are our deepest
concern.
I think that my objection to this war is the one most of Europe has-
give the disarmament a chance. If we let ourselves get into a conflict
where WMD is used, we are setting a precedent that has few borders. There
is a strong Pan-Islamic movement in the middle east, whether we want to
admit to it or not, and I think us respectfully allowing a nation to choose
its path is better in the long term than going to war. Not doing so is to
risk a spiraling security problem here in the US. Maybe not more WTC's, but
certainly more sniper incidents, Atlanta Olympic bombings, etc. Saddam's
smoke in mirrors anyway- his day is coming due to his age. My solution-
just take the oil fields, and pump them while holding the money in escrow,
less the cost of the occupation. Saddam will be gone in a year.
The rest of the security council is just trying to make sure we are
not bailing out our economy by going after the cheap oil in Iraq. Especially
when our leaders are talking about possibly decades of occupation of the
country?
Any how, this is only a prelude to what is going to happen with
China. The worlds fastest growing economy is going to come into conflict
with the worlds second longest standing rich economy, I'm sure. And I'd
rather have the hands clean on the part of the US before we get into that
one. That is the real future conflict I am talking about. Anything we do
today that reverberates for 40 years (as a unilateral attack will do) is
something we need to consider very carefully. Colin Powell, the one I
respect most out of our leadership right now, felt the same way. He was
told to toe the line...
Then again, if our economy is in the tank as bad as they suspect it
will go in the White House- then we need the cheap oil!!!
I think you know what I am saying when I mention the term
"wannabees." I think we are being pretty strongly propagandized right now,
with the alerts, predictions of cost in fighting terrorism, etc. and those
who are emotionally tied to military history are very quick to jump on the
war band wagon. I am tied to it in the same way. But there are lots of
level heads out there, with much military experience, who are saying to be
cautious with this one; they realize that maybe this is not as serious as
we make it out to be. I am very concerned that we are being driven down a
road that has fewer forks in the future.
We shouldn't be led there by wannabee power projectionists. If our
administration thinks that we can send Madison Avenue to Europe, Africa, the
Middle East, and Asia and improve the US image while we are engaging in
hostile acts against Iraq, they are wrong. The world judges us not by the
last two years of our history, but the last 40 years. Vietnam, refusal to
ship wheat to Russia during famines, indifference during African revolution
and genocide, refusal to deal with the Indian Subcontinent crisis (which is
a MUCH more serious threat to world stability than Iraq, as far as I am
concerned- remember what nationality sells you your morning coffee every day
and what they could put in it), and corporate ventures into China's economy
without end. We don't look good. There are countries out there that look
at us as Germany was perceived during WWII, with great horror, but no real
way to stop us. We are pretty much the strongest military nation on earth,
and we need to wield that power carefully- that's for sure...
We might be able to keep a billion muslims from uniting, or postpone it for
a while. But we might have trouble keeping a billion Hindu's, 2 billion
Chinese, and a billion muslims from fighting us to a draw if we don't
project our power wisely...
Just a different point of view to think about...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve & Jeanne Keith" <cckw@attbi.com>
To: "John Seidts" <jseidts@astory.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: [MV] The French
>
>
> > I should've mentioned that.
>
> Prolly yes
>
> > Of course, that rant by me, former US Army
> > Special Forces for 10 years....
>
> Thank you for your service to this country!
>
> With all due respect though, battlefield/military
> experience is 'wonderful' teacher, however history
> is a better one IMHO
>
> Thanks again
> Steve
>
>
>
>
===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org> To
reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 13:25:50 PDT